Patterson's comment from the Headliners meeting

[echeese]

Posted from OB. . . . .thought it would be of interest. . . not sure what the Headliners group is. . . 

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

"Patterson was the speaker at the Tuesday
 Dinner Club at Headliners' tonight, and he sat with my table for the dinner portion of the evening. He covered a ton of ground between my questions at dinner, his talk and the Q&A after. I'll try to summarize as best I can:
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Patterson's number one priority is the athletic department as a whole, not just the football and basketball team. (shocking statement form the Athletic Director, I know). But he values winning the Director's Cup much more so than a football national championship, in any given year. You can tell he's dialed in to all our teams and they all mean a lot to him, not just the three revenue sports. He is proud that we finished 6th last year, but he wants us finishing first, and competing with Stanford every year (even though Stanford has many more varsity programs than we do).
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

We are not as rich as we think we are. Patterson noted that Stanford is the only fully endowed athletic department in the country, with somewhere in the vicinity of $500,000,000 supporting its athletic programs. They are all fully provided for. By contrast, we have a $27,000,000 athletics budget. Patterson is working hard to change this. Also of note - we will finish the last fiscal year in the red for the first time in quite a while. He said not to ever expect that to happen again (it was mostly due to new hires and facilities expenses like the new volleyball practice facility).
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

The "UT Brand" is still a major talking point for him. Money/revenues dominated the conversation. He remains fixated on our national and international exposure, which is just as annoying as ever to hear about. However, that's not to say he isn't prioritizing the fan experience here. He acknowledged the significant deficiencies in our fan experiences at football and basketball games and says they are already working on changing the presentation of all of our sports.
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Facilities upgrades are coming, and they're coming soon. He told me tried to get the south end zone and Moncrief on to next year's budget, but it couldn't come together fast enough. Expect an announcement next year, and construction sometime in 2016. It will be primarily club seating and suites, which Patterson claims are in high demand. Godzillatron is coming down and will be replaced by the newest and best HD screen. There will be significantly less advertising cluttering up the screen and many fewer ad spots coming on during games. He stated flat out that Moncrief is severely outdated, and that we are losing the arms race, but only because we are at the back of the cycle. He laughed about waterfalls in the training room (Alabama) and xbox's in lockers (Oregon). That stuff will look like novelty crap compared to the quality of the facility we install.
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

A new basketball arena will almost certainly not be on campus, and he intends to put significant pressure on the city for public funding for the new arena. There is no room on campus for the facility he desires. He did not elaborate on what "type" of venue he seeks, but if its a shared public space (which it will be), expect it to be more Dean Dome than Cameron Indoor.
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

His arrogance about the stature of UT in the state and around the country is right in line with the majority of us. He considers us the National University of Texas. Talked about how our ratings in Dallas for the UCLA game were double the Metroplex ratings of the two primetime SEC games combined. Having said that, I doubt he has his head in the sand about the money and exposure SEC schools currently enjoy.
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

The "duplications" (i.e., redundancies) in the AD are being taken care of. Many of the women's departments have been rolled in to the men's department and he's making the AD "more efficient" in personnel.
 
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

-That's what I can recall of the top of my head. I'm sure if any of you have specific questions, I'll remember his thoughts."
atex again, not sure how to format it back to regular...
Like I said, nothing ground breaking. Still a lot of the disappointing (IMO) mixed up priorities. 
Also, if the guy who wrote this in on OB and would like me to take it down, let me know. You can send me an email at my username + gmail . com 

 

[Lukus Alderman]

First of all, I am very surprised that our revenue seems so low, especially compared to that of Stanford.

Secondly, I'm not so sure his priorities are out of whack.  As an athletic director, I would imagine that one of his main priorities is to raise money and push the brand nationally.  We have done well with that for a long time.  But the best way to advertise and push the brand of a University is to win at football.

Look at Alabama.  Before Saban got there, they were ok. But you didn't hear the "Roll Tide" and see Bama shirts and caps everywhere.  When they started to win AT FOOTBALL they became THE national brand.  Not only Bama, but the SEC as a whole.

Furthermore, if we want the Texas Brand to have the top value, it starts with ESPN.  We have the Longhorn Network, but we're still lacking Directv.  We need Directv and we need ESPN to push LHN on each of their channels like theyve done with the SEC Network.

All of that said, I'm sure Patterson has a plan and knows how to get it done.

 

[utisdabomb12]

Patterson's number one priority is the athletic department as a whole, not just the football and basketball team. (shocking statement form the Athletic Director, I know). But he values winning the Director's Cup much more so than a football national championship, in any given year. You can tell he's dialed in to all our teams and they all mean a lot to him, not just the three revenue sports. He is proud that we finished 6th last year, but he wants us finishing first, and competing with Stanford every year (even though Stanford has many more varsity programs than we do).

This IMO is the most important comment and is right on the money. Nothing annoys more than a school like A&M saying they don't care about basketball, baseball, volleyball, etc. What separates a great college athletics program from a good one is success across multiple sports. That's why I always try to support the smaller sports like soccer and volleyball. Every program is going to have down years which is why it's great to have other successful sports on campus. Winning in just football doesn't do it for me personally. I want a successful athletics program not just a successful football program. 

 

[utisdabomb12]

Just a question, what priorities do you see mixed up? 

 

[streettopeschel]

First of all, I am very surprised that our revenue seems so low, especially compared to that of Stanford.

Secondly, I'm not so sure his priorities are out of whack.  As an athletic director, I would imagine that one of his main priorities is to raise money and push the brand nationally.  We have done well with that for a long time.  But the best way to advertise and push the brand of a University is to win at football.

Look at Alabama.  Before Saban got there, they were ok. But you didn't hear the "Roll Tide" and see Bama shirts and caps everywhere.  When they started to win AT FOOTBALL they became THE national brand.  Not only Bama, but the SEC as a whole.

Furthermore, if we want the Texas Brand to have the top value, it starts with ESPN.  We have the Longhorn Network, but we're still lacking Directv.  We need Directv and we need ESPN to push LHN on each of their channels like theyve done with the SEC Network.

All of that said, I'm sure Patterson has a plan and knows how to get it done.

sounds about right.

one thing though.. i always take officials talking revenue/profits with a grain of salt. maybe what he said is true, but i'm skeptical. 

he's sure not going to announce to a bunch of strangers at some random dinner 'hell yeah, we're rolling in the dough'. that would fuel the 'texas only cares about money' perception. and it potentially could hurt donations and fundraising if donors thought we had a cash surplus.

 

[BevoBlake]

Yeah, I'm not really seeing where the priorities are mixed up. Texas definitely needs to build and expand beyond DKR. 

 

[utisdabomb12]

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "the national brand". I think Bama has an argument for being the national brand in football at this current moment, but I'm not sure that makes them "the national brand" when we talk about college athletics. Bama is atrocious in basketball, isn't great in baseball, etc.

I'm probably in the minority when I say football isn't the only driver of a national brand.

 

[Lukus Alderman]

I guess it depends on your interpretation of "the national brand". I think Bama has an argument for being the national brand in football at this current moment, but I'm not sure that makes them "the national brand" when we talk about college athletics. Bama is atrocious in basketball, isn't great in baseball, etc.

I'm probably in the minority when I say football isn't the only driver of a national brand.

 
I don't think that it's the only driver, but I think it is probably the top driver. Of all collegiate sports, I would probably not be mistaken to say that football has the most coverage for the longest period of time. You could argue that basketball gets a good deal of coverage, but that really only occurs at the end of April into March.

I agree that football isn't the only priority, but I do think that it should be at or near the top of the list.

 

[BevoBlake]

You could argue that basketball gets a good deal of coverage, but that really only occurs at the end of April into March.

 

[streettopeschel]

I don't think that it's the only driver, but I think it is probably the top driver. Of all collegiate sports, I would probably not be mistaken to say that football has the most coverage for the longest period of time. You could argue that basketball gets a good deal of coverage, but that really only occurs at the end of April into March.

I agree that football isn't the only priority, but I do think that it should be at or near the top of the list.

that's a good point lukus (did i really just type that?).

it hasn't quite reached the year round saturated coverage of the nfl but it's getting close. 

fall camp starts first of august and gets covered. then the season goes from Sept-January. then signing day and the lead up get max coverage into February. then comes spring ball and the spring game which are all being televised these days. pretty much only June/July don't get some coverage and even then there's still recruiting speculation or 7-7 workouts for the most avid.

 

[Matt Cotcher]

I disagree that Alabama is 'THE' national brand. They are winning, so it feels like they are to those of us who pay too much attention to CFB, but that doesn't make them the national brand.

Re: LHN vs SECN - it's much like Patterson described the facilities...LHN is the back-end of the cycle. 2 years ago, it was ground breaking, new, and different. Since then the Pac 12 & SECN have launched and taken the spotlight.

ESPN invested hundred of millions of dollars in LHN. I suspect that as Strong & the program return to the national conversation that you'll see LHN enter the discussion in  a big way.

 

[streettopeschel]

Whether bama is "THE' national brand or not, they're the lead dog in the lead sport. whatever you want to call it, it's a good spot to be in.

 

[Bear19]

I don't think that it's the only driver, but I think it is probably the top driver. Of all collegiate sports, I would probably not be mistaken to say that football has the most coverage for the longest period of time. You could argue that basketball gets a good deal of coverage, but that really only occurs at the end of April into March.

I agree that football isn't the only priority, but I do think that it should be at or near the top of the list.

Football should be at the top by quite a margin.

 

[Shevis Irons]

You could argue that basketball gets a good deal of coverage, but that really only occurs at the end of April into March.

.

If ever there was proof things are backward in the hills of Tennassee.

 

[Chris Flanagan]

hahahahahaha

 

[Chris Flanagan]

On LHN- DirecTV is key. I wanted to eat out for dinner with my family during the North Texas game and almost all the places I called had DirecTV. Had one lady say: "We have DirecTV so we have all the games." Umm..... Okay not that I, you know, write for a Texas Longhorns website and pretty much know that if you have DirecTV, you don't have LHN which means you don't have that game.

But I digress. Get DirecTV, get more exposure. That's going to be tough, like the TWC-NFL Network battle but it might be longer than that.

On the Basketball arena- Yeah it's not going to be on campus.

I know Ohio State has their own 20,000 seat campus stadium with another 20,000 seat arena in Downtown Columbus but that won't happen here. Mostly because I doubt they would be able to fill it for every game. When they do it off campus, they need to make sure it's relatively close. Make sure students could easily walk to it. If it's longer than the walk from DKR to Duren Hall, it's not going to get students to the game. Oh and a free shuttle would be nice. But with Austin getting a ton of music acts in town, they need to have a bigger arena and with UT basketball, that will help get public funding.

 

[Lukus Alderman]

If ever there was proof things are backward in the hills of Tennassee.

Edit:  Nevermind.  Laugh out loud.

That was really bad.  I'm embarrassed for myself.

 

[streettopeschel]

On LHN- DirecTV is key. I wanted to eat out for dinner with my family during the North Texas game and almost all the places I called had DirecTV. Had one lady say: "We have DirecTV so we have all the games." Umm..... Okay not that I, you know, write for a Texas Longhorns website and pretty much know that if you have DirecTV, you don't have LHN which means you don't have that game.

But I digress. Get DirecTV, get more exposure. That's going to be tough, like the TWC-NFL Network battle but it might be longer than that.

On the Basketball arena- Yeah it's not going to be on campus.

I know Ohio State has their own 20,000 seat campus stadium with another 20,000 seat arena in Downtown Columbus but that won't happen here. Mostly because I doubt they would be able to fill it for every game. When they do it off campus, they need to make sure it's relatively close. Make sure students could easily walk to it. If it's longer than the walk from DKR to Duren Hall, it's not going to get students to the game. Oh and a free shuttle would be nice. But with Austin getting a ton of music acts in town, they need to have a bigger arena and with UT basketball, that will help get public funding.

i can't imagine a space even close to big enough to build a facility on campus. and isn't the erwin center 'relatively close' to campus? how much closer could it be? i don't think distance is keeping students from attending.

 

[monarch]

 

echeese, i am shocked, with as well versed as you are.. that you are hereby not familiar with the headliner's club.  this particular facility has to be without a doubt, one of the UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS's most major perks / incentives, as per major UT new hires upon the 40 acres.

one of our OB cohorts atex720 father's friend.. sent his father an email, in which his father forwarded to him to spread the much needed gospel.  here is a direct quote as per atex720 upon the OB:  My dad's friend sent him this email today. From his dinner with Steve. I do not know the guy well enough to vouch for his credentials or anything, but I have no reason to believe he'd make this stuff up. But, I suppose it's up to you to judge the following as you will. There isn't anything in here that's breaking news I don't think, just some interesting stuff about the guy in charge. 

echeese, should you travel down to the third poster upon that particular thread, you shall discover none other than yours truly, trying in earnest to find out any and all as per that particular dinner meeting.  please allow for me to share our portion, as per this discussion.  by the way, my OB name is winmal:   

however, i would love to know more regarding the SEZ vs neuhaus moncrief.  what all is hereby being included as per the overall plans?  are they hereby looking for it to become the largest collegiate stadium in the nation?  what about #2 vs #3 in the nation?  are the hereby planning to completely demolish moncrief and replace it entirely?  where shall it be constructed.  since it shall be quite evident that the new SEZ construction, shall take up a vast amount of space within that particular area.  the brand spanking new facilities that are now being enjoyed as per aTm, vs alabama, vs oregon and so forth... are hereby state of the art design vs magnificent in scope and scale.  just how on earth, shall the new moncrief out shine these new and yet brilliantly designed facilities?  additionally, what about the new football training facility?  any mention...
 
quote from atex720:  wouldnt we all.
But it makes sense about being on the back end of the cycle. In a year or so Texas and a few others will build incredible facilities. Then a few years laters Bama and Oregon will update theirs and then a few years later it's our turn again. I don't know what the exact cycle is but chances are from now on everybody is going to have to upgrade something(s) every ten years at most. 
well actually atex720, just referencing what you have presented thus far, is much appreciated. 

 
therefore, as you may now reference, atex720, really didn't add much to my query... as i really do not believe that he was all that well informed from the get go.  however, i was hereby quite appreciative of the very fact that he was willing to share just what he had.